Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
MY FS FLIGHTS
Flight Score
Work on the flare
Arrive slow and the sink rate at the threshold is already above schedule, the flare is short because there is no energy to extend it, and the touchdown is hard in a way that feels exactly like a late flare. Diagnosing a slow arrival as a late flare is the catastrophic misread: you respond by flaring earlier, which bleeds more speed, which makes the next one worse. The tiebreaker is threshold speed against VRef, not feel. Never diagnose a flare without it.
Read more in Flare TimingStart to finish · 20 stages, 18 scored
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
Events
The threshold, the flare and the hold-off. The approach that led to it is the stabilisation gates below.
One stabilised approach gate: five checks where the approach path is 500 ft above the runway. The 1,000 ft gate was not assessed, because the approach did not join final that far out.
Side view — the last 2,111 m of the approach.
Plan view — the first 2,111 m of the 3,500 m runway, to the same scale as the side view.
Touched down 897 m past the threshold — beyond the full-score zone. The arrival was smooth.
The rest of the report
Firstly, congratulations on achieving an aircraft landing score of 82.1%! This is a commendable performance, but let's delve into the detailed analysis of each phase to identify areas for improvement.
Starting with the Approach Phase, it is noted that there was good glideslope alignment. This indicates that the descent of the aircraft was well managed, leading to a stable approach towards the runway. However, further efforts can be made to ensure precision in maintaining the glideslope alignment throughout the approach.
Moving on to the Landing Phase, there were both positive and negative aspects to consider. While the threshold height was above target, indicating a slightly higher approach than desired, the landing flare was identified as very poor. This may have contributed to a less than ideal touchdown. Improving the landing flare technique will be crucial in achieving a smoother touchdown in future landings.
In the Touchdown Phase, there were a few areas of concern. Although the touchdown rate was hard, it is positive to note that the speed was on target. However, the touchdown point being 482 meters beyond the touchdown zone suggests a significant variation from the intended landing spot. Additionally, the runway touchdown position was 6.2 meters from the centerline, indicating the need for better alignment during touchdown.
Finally, in the Rollout Phase, it was observed that the runway alignment was 18.3 meters from the centerline. This suggests a deviation from the desired path and indicates the need for improved alignment control during the rollout phase for better overall landing performance.
In conclusion, while your aircraft landing score of 82.1% is a positive outcome, there are specific areas within each phase that can be targeted for enhancement. By focusing on improving glideslope alignment, landing flare technique, touchdown accuracy, and rollout alignment, you can work towards achieving even higher landing scores in future flights. Keep practicing, remain attentive to the details, and strive for continuous improvement in all phases of the landing process. Your efforts will undoubtedly lead to further success in mastering the art of aircraft landings.
Scroll or drag the slider to zoom · double-click to reset · hover for values